Bruning ad welcomes Kerrey to NE Senate race as the “New York liberal”

posted at 9:50 am on March 2, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Remember that Bob Kerrey is the Democrats’ best hope for holding the Senate seat from Nebraska, even though Kerrey hasn’t bothered to live in the state since his Senate retirement more than a decade ago. Jon Bruning reminds Nebraskans that Kerrey hasn’t exactly kept up with their political sensibilities, and says Kerrey’s values are as far from theirs as … well, as far as Nebraska is from New York City:

Remember that Democratic incumbent Ben Nelson retired rather than face the wrath of Nebraskans over his crucial vote that allowed ObamaCare to pass. Courtesy of the NRSC, here’s Bob Kerrey in 2009, telling a Greenwich Village audience that the longer he lived in the neighborhood the further to the left he gets on health care — and bemoans the “demonization” of the public option:

Now that he’s in the race, Kerrey says there are “significant flaws” in the ObamaCare bill, but that “I don’t know all the details of it,” despite insisting over two years ago that he knew enough to go further to the left on ObamaCare and support the public option. Nevertheless, flaws and all, Kerrey won’t vote to repeal the bill if he gets elected:

I suspect that the NRSC is delighted to have Bob Kerrey in the race. It’s going to be much easier to run against a Greenwich Village leftist than a Democrat who can fake being a conservative more effectively.

I agree. I have read so much lately that they think that not only will they hold the Senate, but will re-capture the House.

That is insane.

Anyone who even bothers to read the cliff notes for the Cook Report knows that at most Democrats will pick up 5-10 seats in the House. And only if they run Blue Dogs, and not hardcore liberals.

And the Senate is very, very hard for them to hold. The only 2 legitimate pick-ups for them are Brown’s seat and Snowe’s seat. I highly doubt they pick-up both (considering Brown has a commanding lead in MA, and Snowe was up by like 30 points in ME). But even assuming they win those 2 seats, they will likely lose McCaskill’s seat (46), Tester’s seat (47), Nelson’s seat (48), Conrad’s seat (49) and Webb’s seat (50). Then, if this election is as tough for Democrats as 2010 was, you put Bill Nelson’s, Jeff Bingaman’s, Sherrod Brown’s, Bob Casey’s and Joe Manchin’s seats in play too. And at worst, Republicans are coming out of this election with 51/52 seats. And if I were a betting man, I would say Brown keeps his seat, and the Republicans might do better than expected and have 52-54 seats in the Senate.

“Vistica also found one member of Kerrey’s unit with something even more troubling to recount. Gerhard Klann, a twenty-year SEAL veteran who had been in on the action that night, told Vistica that the first hooch was inhabited not by watchmen but by a Vietnamese family: an elderly man and woman and three children under twelve. Kerrey, according to Klann, gave the order to kill them, which his men then proceeded to do with knives. When Klann had difficulty dispatching the old man, Kerrey himself stepped in, putting his knee on the man’s chest and holding him down while Klann dragged a blade across his throat.”

Hard to understand what Kerrey is thinking here. He has about as much chance of winning this election as I would.

rockmom on March 2, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Oh! I’d give the edge to you.

Unless you are an outgoing First Lady whose people can organize enough pardons for terrorists and t tax cheats to leverage a win in a very liberal state, you don’t have a chance jumping into a race after having lived elsewhere for over a decade. I suspect Kerrey will find (as Al Gore did) that his home state has moved on beyond him in the many years he has been flirting with the Northeastern radical left establishment.

The last time Bob Kerrey participated in an election here in Nebraska was 1994. In that time, an entire generation of Nebraskans has been born and reached voting age while the segment of Nebraskans that regard the Kerrey/Exon days of has dwindled. In that time, the Democratic Party has gotten substantially weaker in Nebraska (and a big part of why they’re trying to outsource this election), while the GOP now holds all three Congressional seats, Jim Exon’s old seat in the Senate, the governorship, and the AG.

The last time Kerrey had to participate in an election that he wasn’t a lock to win was the governorship back in ’82. The first time he ran for election to the Senate, it was against an appointee with no politcal background, and the second time he was an incumbant against a Nebraska businesswoman with extremely low name recognition. It’s a different game now.

This really pulls my chain, they move away, then move back just to run for office. Shouldn’t there be some kind of time table of living in a state before they can run? This is BS, its probably a good thing in this case, but I think overall they should be able to run unless they have live somewhere for a number of years, say 5 or more.

If Romney keeps up his desired strategy of depressing Republican voter turnout in the primaries, that may very well not happen in the general.

ebrown2 on March 2, 2012 at 10:15 AM

I actually disagree with this for several reasons:

1. Contested primaries dont equate to depressed general election turn-out. Just look at 2008. Hilary and Obama went after each other pretty hard. It was just as nasty as this primary has been for Republicans. At the end of the day the party united against Bush, came up to vote, and won the election.

2. As mentioned, in 2008, the effect of unification was a big year for Democrats in regards to the House, Senate and Governor’s races.

3. The Republicans will unite. This is not the first tough Republican primary and will not be the last. Once there is a candidate, whoever he is, I am willing to state, unequivocally, that at least 90% of Republicans will gravitate behind him, and get excited about beating Obama.

4. The Republican nominee will get a lot of money. That will go to running negative ads against Obama, which will make him toxix in the states I mentioned. Candidates will have to run away from him, not towards the Republican, which will be the case.

5. With an increasing enthusiasm gap, Democrats will be the ones less likely to vote.

So, ultimately, I stand by what I have said. Now, things can change between now and November. But as I see it right now, Republicans will keep the House with between a 20 and 25 seat margin. They will win the Senate with a margin of +2-4, and they have a 70-30 chance to win the White House.

ED MORRISSEY
I am very thankful for the open registration but,
PLEASE do not have another one for maybe 3 years, so we can take out the trash that has infected OUR site. I really dont believe some of the spiteful BS that is written here. It doesn’t look good for any of us.
thanks Ed
angry mike

Jim DeMint endorsed Don Stenberg. If you are in NE, PLEASE don’t vote for Bruning. Vote STENBERG in the primary!!

jubalearly on March 2, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Oh. Good to know. I don’t live in Nebraska. DeMint have any picks in TN?? That’s right he won’t go after R senators. Too bad. Anyway, interested outsiders can always contribute to DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund PAC. I am not paid for this feeble endorsement.

Jim DeMint endorsed Don Stenberg. If you are in NE, PLEASE don’t vote for Bruning. Vote STENBERG in the primary!!

jubalearly on March 2, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Don Stenberg is a good guy, but he has been losing elections in Nebraska consistently since 1978. That includes losses to both Chuck Hagel in the 1996 Senate primary and then again to Ben Nelson in the 2000 election. It’s worth noting that he wasn’t even able to win even in the year Bush was elected. He lost another Senate primary in 2006 to the former Ameritrade COO.

This really pulls my chain, they move away, then move back just to run for office. Shouldn’t there be some kind of time table of living in a state before they can run? This is BS, its probably a good thing in this case, but I think overall they should be able to run unless they have live somewhere for a number of years, say 5 or more.

angrymike on March 2, 2012 at 11:00 AM

I don’t know. I keep thinking the problem is ‘us.’ If the citizens of NE are dumb enough to pull that lever…

The ‘conservative’ answer to all of this never changes: Self-suffiency, preparation, expertise, faith, – they don’t go out of style. And it doesn’t matter what anyone else does if you’ve got ’em…

The Democrats in a way are screwed in a way they refuse to comprehend. They will either lose big this election (the 2008 class of Senators). Or, if Romney or Santorum losses a close race, and the Republicans can only get to to 50-51 seats, and Obama governs like a tyrant, they will lose the Senate in 2014 (the 2008 class).

As for the list, and this is way too early as I have not actually done too much research into this, I think the sure losses are:

1. Begich
2. Johnson
3. Warner
4. Landrieu

But, there are about 6-8 other excellent pick-up oppotunities if Obama is President.

With that said, if Romney wins, I think a lot of those seats will stay blue because this country like divided government (unless Romney or Santorum do a great job for 2 years).

One thing I do know for a fact is Lautenberg’s seat is not being lost. New Jersey just does not have any viable state-wide candidates other than Christie, and by then he is either going to be re-elected, or lose his re-election and fade from the political spectrum altogether. And if Lautenberg is vulnerable and/or decides to retire, there is a very deep Democratic bench.

With that said, if Romney wins, I think a lot of those seats will stay blue because this country like divided government (unless Romney or Santorum do a great job for 2 years).

My sense is that no matter who is in the white house, red states won’t be so quick to elect democrats in statewide races again. I think the myth of the conservative democrat took a sound thrashing with the passage of Obamacare.

When you think about it, with the political alignment of the country, so long as people vote for the party that best matches their values and have a more disciplined strategic approach, it’s not hard to find 30 states that should send 2 senators apiece – give or take a fluke that can go either way, like Brown or Begich.

My sense is that no matter who is in the white house, red states won’t be so quick to elect democrats in statewide races again. I think the myth of the conservative democrat took a sound thrashing with the passage of Obamacare.

When you think about it, with the political alignment of the country, so long as people vote for the party that best matches their values and have a more disciplined strategic approach, it’s not hard to find 30 states that should send 2 senators apiece – give or take a fluke that can go either way, like Brown or Begich.

Uncledave on March 2, 2012 at 12:22 PM

It could be. However, I really do not believe most people are that principled to keep voting for one party. People are gullible to stupid slogans and negative attack ads. Populists like Obama will always have a chance, especially in times of financial turmoil.

And while I agree with you about the layout of this country, the problem is people do not vote for their interests. There are rich people who vote for Democrats, certain religious groups that vote against the party that represents them, and other groups that tend to be socially conservative but vote for Democrats.

And the Democrats keep dilluding the voter pool via immigration policy and social programs to build up their base.

So, honestly, there are no givens. And until Republicans address immigration (and I mean stop letting almost everyone into this country legally as well) and social programs, they are facing a slippery slope.

The New School always seemed like such a good fit for Bob Kerrey. He should stay there and be well and happy. The only thing waiting for him in Nebraska is humiliation and defeat. Which is a good thing since the most “significant flaw” he finds in ObamaCare is no doubt the lack of public option which, of course, is an euphemism for single payer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_staff
Take a peek at the amount of staff we support in order to listen to the talking head that’s called a Congress person. Over eleven thousand doing the work they say is representing us in Congress. No wonder the Health Care Bill that nobody takes credit in writing , reading or understanding when these staff got it together. The salaries are also listed in the above site, give it a read, you’ll be glad you did.